i-SAFE, Inc. Application for Safe Harbor #546345-00005

February 14, 2010

Submission Number:

546345-00005

Commenter:

melissa Marsh

State:

MN

Initiative Name:

i-SAFE, Inc. Application for Safe Harbor

1. Please provide comments on any or all of the provisions in the proposed guidelines. For each provision commented on please describe (a) the impact of the provision(s) (including any benefits and costs), if any, and (b) what alternatives, if any, iSAFE should consider, as well as the costs and benefits of those alternatives. I think that the I-safe program is a strong tool to protect children. Many times there is too much access to the internet that makes it difficult for parents and the prevailing laws to govern. Young children many times do not understand both what they are getting asked and what they are looking at, to have control by implementing password support and also VeriSign to verify age of someone either searching for information or purchasing an item. The benefits of the initiatives help protect children, protect families as a whole. It won’t allow some information to be shared that a child may know but not have access too. It protects from 3rd parties being able to phish for information. It also does allow for safe areas to be created for children’s sites. A child can play on the internet. An example would be “Club Penguin” A cost is it takes people it update and run the systems there is an expense that has to be accounted for. An alternative would be that each parent would have to set up their internet controls or buying personal computer software that would parent the web browser to replace some of these things. I think I-safe should not consider these alternatives because the internet is widely unregulated and that it needs to have a government outline not necessarily controlling the information but to protect individual rights and to develop system that can protect these rights both of the internet providers and users. 2. Do the provisions of the proposed guidelines governing operators’ information practices provide ‘‘the same or greater protections for children’’ as those contained in Sections 312.2-312.8 of the Rule? Where possible, please